DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. 142, Original ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL MASTER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER February 14, 2017 --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RALPH I. LANCASTER, JR. Special Master PIERCE ATWOOD LLP Merrill’s Wharf 254 Commercial Street Portland, ME 04101 (207) 791-1100 [email protected] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iv I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 II. BACKGROUND ........................................... 4 A. The Basin and Bay ................................ 4 B. Prior Proceedings .................................. 10 III. PLEADINGS ................................................ 14 IV. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL MASTER ............................ 17 V. APPLICABLE EQUITABLE APPORTION- MENT STANDARD ..................................... 24 A. Relevant Considerations ....................... 24 B. Burden of Proof ...................................... 27 VI. ANALYSIS ................................................... 30 A. Background Regarding Florida’s Harm and Georgia’s Water Use ....................... 31 B. The Corps’ Operational Protocols for Its Projects in the Basin ............................. 35 1. General Corps Operations ............... 36 2. The Revised Interim Operating Plan ................................................... 41 3. The Proposed Water Control Man- ual ..................................................... 45 C. Effect of the Corps’ Operational Proto- cols on the Availability of an Effective Remedy in this Proceeding .................... 46 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 1. The States’ Conflicting Claims ........ 46 2. Uncertainty Regarding the Availa- bility of an Effective Remedy ........... 47 a. Uncertainty Regarding the Avail- ability of an Effective Remedy During Drought Operations or Low-Flow Conditions .................. 48 i. The Possibility of Offset Op- erations by the Corps .......... 49 ii. The Likelihood of Offset Op- erations by the Corps .......... 53 iii. Summary ............................. 61 b. Uncertainty Regarding the Avail- ability of an Effective Remedy During Periods Not Involving Drought Operations or Low-Flow Conditions ................................... 62 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................. 69 VIII. RECOMMENDATION ................................. 70 APPENDIX Appendix A – Special Master Docket, No. 142 Original .................................................................. A1 Appendix B – Map of ACF River Basin .................... B1 Appendix C – Map of Dams in ACF River Basin ..... C1 Appendix D – Map of Apalachicola River ................. D1 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Appendix E – Map of Apalachicola Bay .................... E1 Appendix F – Trial Witness List ............................... F1 Appendix G – Map of ACF River Basin Drainage Areas ....................................................................... G1 Appendix H – West Point Lake Storage ................... H1 Appendix I – West Point Lake Action Zones ............. I1 Appendix J – Proposed Decree ................................... J1 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) ................. 23 Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383 (1943) .............. 23, 28 Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176 (1982) ............................................... 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984) ...... 28, 47 Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (1931) ............................................... 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 Florida v. Georgia, 135 S. Ct. 471 (2014) ................... 16 Florida v. Georgia, 135 S. Ct. 701 (2014) ................... 17 Francis Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 661 F.2d 873 (10th Cir. 1981) ................................................. 20 Idaho v. Oregon, 444 U.S. 380 (1980) ............. 24, 30, 69 Idaho v. Oregon, 462 U.S. 1017 (1983) ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 In re MDL-1924 Tri-State Water Rights Litig., 644 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................ 13 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) ............................. 28 Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945) .......... 25, 27 Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1 (1995) .................... 25 New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931) ....... 25, 27 Se. Fed. Power Customers, Inc. v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................... 13 South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (2010) ................................................................. 24, 25 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Stewart v. Bridges, 292 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. 1982) .......... 26 United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945) ................................................................ 26 Washington v. Oregon, 297 U.S. 517 (1936) ... 24, 29, 30 5F, LLC v. Dressing, 142 So.3d 936 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) ................................................................ 26 STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact, Pub. L. No. 105-104, 111 Stat. 2219 (1997) ................................................................. 11, 12 Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. ............................................................................. 7 Flint River Drought Protection Act, Ga. Code Ann. § 12-5-540 et seq. ...................................... 33, 34 Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. § 560d ................ 7 Flood Control Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-874, § 203, 76 Stat. 1173, 1182 (1962) .............................. 6 H.R. Doc. No. 342, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 77 (1939) ......................................................................... 6 River and Harbor Act of 1945, Pub. L. No. 79-14, § 2, 59 Stat. 10, 17 (1945) .......................................... 6 River and Harbor Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79- 525, § 1, 60 Stat. 634, 635 (1946) .............................. 6 Water Supply Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. § 390b ................ 7 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page TREATISES Tarlock, Law of Water Rights & Resources, §§ 3:54, 3:60 .......................................................................... 26 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) ................................................. 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 .................................................... 17, 18 1 I. INTRODUCTION This original jurisdiction proceeding arises from a dispute between the States of Florida and Georgia re- garding Georgia’s use of water in the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (the “Basin”), which encompasses parts of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. In its Complaint, Florida alleges that it has suffered serious harm to its ecology and economy – particularly in Apalachicola Bay (the “Bay”) – because of reduced flows in the Apalachicola River (the “River”) resulting from Georgia’s increasing consumption of water from the Basin. Florida therefore seeks an equitable appor- tionment of the waters of the Basin. This action is the latest battle in a long-running war between the State of Florida and the State of Geor- gia over the use of the waters of the Basin. Florida has long maintained that it is entitled to streamflow in the River adequate to sustain the riverine and estuarine ecosystems in the River and the Bay (collectively, the “Apalachicola Region”) as well as the livelihood of those, like the oystermen of the Bay, who make their living from these ecosystems. Georgia, for its part, has insisted that it be permitted to consume sufficient wa- ter from the Basin to meet the municipal and indus- trial water demands of the Atlanta metropolitan area as well as the agricultural irrigation demands of farm- ers in southeastern Georgia. Decades of on-again- off-again negotiations and litigation over the use of the waters of the Basin have, unfortunately, led to this original jurisdiction proceeding rather than to a 2 mutually-acceptable solution negotiated by the States on behalf of all of the affected stakeholders in the Ba- sin – oystermen, farmers, and businesses alike. In this proceeding, Florida seeks a remedy for what it asserts is Georgia’s excessive consumptive use of water1 from the Basin. According to Florida, Geor- gia’s consumption of water has reduced the flows in the River to an extent that is destroying the ecology of both the River and the Bay, as well as the economy of the Apalachicola Region. Georgia, in turn, argues that Florida’s asserted harms are imaginary, self-inflicted, or inflicted by the operations of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) or changes in precipitation patterns (or some combination thereof ) but in any event cannot be traced to Georgia’s water use. Georgia also maintains that, without an order binding the Corps, Florida will not be assured any re- lief – assuming it has suffered any injury at all – by a decree entered in this proceeding because the Corps has the ability to impound water in various reservoirs that it maintains in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COMPARISON of PRE- and POST- MPOUNDMENT GROUND-WATER LEVELS NEAR the WOODRUFF LOCK and DAM SITE, JACKSON COUNTY, FLORIDA Phillip N
    COMPARISON OF PRE- AND POST- MPOUNDMENT GROUND-WATER LEVELS NEAR THE WOODRUFF LOCK AND DAM SITE, JACKSON COUNTY, FLORIDA Phillip N. Albertson AUTHOR: Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, 3039 An-miler Road, Suite 130, Peachtree Business Center, Atlanta, GA 30360-2824. REFERENCE: Procet.dings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 26 - 27, 2001, at The University of Georgia, Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. In 1999, the U.S. Geological Survey The effect of filling the reservoir on ground-water (USGS) and the Georgia Department of Natural levels also is indicated by long-term water-level data Resources, Environmental Protection Division, began a from a well near Lake Seminole in Florida. Sporadic, cooperative study to investigate the hydrology and long-term water-level measurements began at this well hydrogeology of the Lake Seminole area, southwestern in 1950 and have continued during filling of the Georgia, and northwestern Florida. Lake Seminole is a reservoir (1954-1957) until 1982. These data indicate 37,500-acre impoundment that was created in 1954 by that the water level in this well has risen more than 10 the construction of the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam feet since the filling of the reservoir. Prior to filling, the just south of the confluence of the Chattahoochee and hydraulic gradient at this location sloped east and Flint Rivers (fig. 1). Recent negotiations between the northeast to the Chattahoochee River. Now it slopes in a States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over water- southerly direction near the western end of Jim allocation rights have brought attention to the need for a Woodruff Lock and Dam and to the Apalachicola River.
    [Show full text]
  • Unsuuseuracsbe
    StRd Opelika 85 Junction City HARRIS StRte 96 Geneva StRte 90 96 37 s te e 1 ran TALBOT tR t te S tR e y S V w DISTRICT e 96 Fort Valley 2 Montrose k t 1 S P tR te 96 1 S StR (M TWIGGS e t on Rd iami Valley Rd t R Mac ) R 6 t 2 d Reynolds e 9 S Dublin 9 8 StRt StRte 80 96 StRte 96 Smiths 80 8 PEACH LEE 2 lt Butler 9 S 1 A tR 4 319 7 e t t e StRte 112 2 e MACON t Dudley y DISTRICT 2 R Armour Rd w TAYLOR t R (EmRd 200) SH t StRte 278 Bibb U 4 7 S TAYLOR S 16 0 3 City Upatoi Cr 1 129 11 e t R S t t S 109th Congress of the United StatesR StRte 112 t 32nd (EmRd 200) e MUSCOGEE 3 Phenix G St Reese Rd 6 3 o 2 2 8 Edgewood Rd l 1 e City Forest Rd d 1 Rt e t COLUMBUS 127 e S n t StRte R I t Steam Mill Rd s S Wickham Dr l e Columbus Marshallville 341 s StR te H S w te 2 t R tR Dexter Ladonia Merval Rd 1 te S 1 7 te 127 S y V 185 2 t Rt tRt e 247 ic 2nd Armored Division Rd 7 tR e 127 S t (S o ) S t 0 137 Rte 90) S r Wolf Cr t 57 y 4 d S Perry Rte 2 Upatoi Cr 2 R D tR r e e t t i StRte 41 StRte e 9 StRte n 0 R 23 t n S 126 t S o StRte 6 R StRte 117 R 2 t ( (Airp 1 ) e Rentz o Rd Chester 27 Fort Benning Military Res rt 3 StRte 128 Whitson Rd 4 Cochran 3 22 8 te R TAYLOR Ideal t CHATTAHOOCHEE S MARION StRte 117 StR USHwy 441 Fort Benning te 9 S 0 StRte 26 7 South t Rte 19 129 BLECKLEY 5 Cadwell 13 7 2 7 te 1 RUSSELL StRte 2 StRte 49 HOUSTON tR 1 40 P S e Buena Vista er t StR ry tR te 26 Hwy S S StRt Cusseta tR e 2 te Oglethorpe 6 ( oad 9 26 Montezuma Fire R 00) B u r S n t R t StRte 126 6 B 2 te DISTRICT r S e ) 3 g Hawkinsville t t e R StR 9 r 2 9
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:07-Md-00001-PAM-JRK Document 376 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 26
    Case 3:07-md-00001-PAM-JRK Document 376 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA In re Tri-State Water Rights Litigation Case No. 3:07-md-01 (PAM/JRK) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In Phase 2 of this Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”), the Court must evaluate the actions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) in light of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and other similar statutes. Phase 1 of the litigation involved challenges to the Corps’s operations at the northernmost dam and reservoir in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (“ACF”) river basin. Phase 2 challenges those operations at the southernmost dam in the system, the Jim Woodruff Dam, which is located on the Apalachicola River at the border of Georgia and Florida. The parties in this Phase are: the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; the Southeastern Federal Power Customers (“SeFPC”); the cities of Apalachicola, Florida, and Atlanta, Columbus, and Gainesville, Georgia; the Georgia counties of Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Fulton; the Atlanta Regional Commission (“ARC”); the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority; the Board of Water Commissioners of Columbus, Georgia, doing business as the Columbus Water Works (“CWW”); the Lake Lanier Association;1 the Alabama Power 1 The Court will refer to Atlanta, Gainesville, Gwinnett County, DeKalb County, Fulton County, the ARC, the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, and the Lake Lanier Association collectively as “the Georgia parties.” The city of Columbus and the CWW Case 3:07-md-00001-PAM-JRK Document 376 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 26 Company (“APC”); the Apalachicola Bay and River Keeper, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Fat Threeridge, Shinyrayed Pocketbook, Gulf Moccasinshell, Ochlockonee
    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE FAT THREERIDGE, SHINYRAYED POCKETBOOK, GULF MOCCASINSHELL, OCHLOCKONEE MOCCASINSHELL, OVAL PIGTOE, CHIPOLA SLABSHELL, AND PURPLE BANKCLIMBER Draft Final Report | September 12, 2007 prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 prepared by: Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 Draft – September 12, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1T SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Economic Analysis 1-1 1.2 Background 1-2 1.3 Regulatory Alternatives 1-9 1.4 Threats to the Species and Habitat 1-9 1.5 Approach to Estimating Economic Effects 1-9 1.6 Scope of the Analysis 1-13 1.7 Analytic Time Frame 1-16 1.8 Information Sources 1-17 1.9 Structure of Report 1-18 SECTION 2 POTENTIAL CHANGES IN WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT FOR CONSERVATION OF THE SEVEN MUSSELS 2-1 2.1 Summary of Methods for Estimation of Economic Impacts Associated with Flow- Related Conservation Measures 2-2 2.2 Water Use in Proposed Critical Habitat Areas 2-3 2.3 Potential Changes in Water Use in the Flint River Basin 2-5 2.4 Potential Changes in Water Management in the Apalachicola River Complex (Unit 8) 2-10 2.5 Potential Changes in Water Management in the Santa Fe River Complex (Unit 11) 2-22 SECTION 3 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS RELATED TO CHANGES IN WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT 3-1 3.1 Summary 3-6 3.2 Potential Economic Impacts Related to Agricultural Water Uses 3-7 3.3 Potential Economic Impacts Related
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECT TESTIMONY of PHILIP B. BEDIENT, Ph.D., P.E
    No. 142, Original In The Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant. DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PHILIP B. BEDIENT, Ph.D., P.E. October 26, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 6 ANY CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OR TIMING OF STATE-LINE FLOW MUST BE COORDINATED AND EXECUTED BY THE CORPS ............................................................... 7 I. The Corps Operates the Federal Reservoir Projects in the ACF Basin as a Single, Integrated System to Balance Multiple Project Purposes ................................................... 9 II. The RIOP Controls Basin-Wide Storage and Releases of Water in the Federal Reservoirs ......................................................................................................................... 17 III. The Corps Operates Its Reservoir System as a Single Unit, and Under Low-Flow Conditions Offsets Increased Flint River Flows by Decreasing Chattahoochee River Releases ................................................................................................................... 25 IV. Increases in Basin Inflow Would Not Increase State-Line Flows into Florida During Low-Flow Conditions or Drought Operations...................................................... 26 REDUCTIONS IN GEORGIA’S WATER USE WOULD NOT RESULT IN INCREASED STATE-LINE FLOWS
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Seminole Hydrilla Action Plan: Development and Implementation
    LAKE SEMINOLE HYDRILLA ACTION PLAN: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Michael J. Eubanks' and Donald M. Morgan' AUTHORS: 'U.S. Army Corps of Eneineers, Mobile District, P.O. Box 2288. Mobile, AL 36628-0001; and 2U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Seminole, P.O. Box 96, Chattahoochee, FL 32324. REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 26-27, 2001, at, the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology.. the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. This paper describes an effort by the U.S. a decrease in adjacent property values. Hydrilla, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to manage the current major problem plant, was discovered on the invasive aquatic plant Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla). lake in 1967. Based on a 1997 survey, this non-native This plant causes serious water resource problems such plant dominates the submersed plant community, which as adverse impacts to small boat navigation, water covers approximately 13,400 acres (40% lakewide), of quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-borne the lake. Total aquatic plant coverage on the lake was recreation, and hydropower production. An integrated approximately 55% (with significant arms of the lake management plan, including several traditional under almost 90% coverage). A number of aquatic chemical, biological, and mechanical methods, was plant management techniques have been utilized since developed to address reducing the coverage of hydrilla project construction in 1957, including chemical on the lake and to enhance restoration of mixed native (herbicides), biological, and mechanical. These costly aquatic plant communities. Two of the hydrilla management options have failed to adequately control management tools that are in the process of the growth of hydrilla.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Operations
    Field Operations Weekly Report July 9 – July 15 , 2017 This report is a broad sampling of events that have taken place in the past week, but does not include all actions taken by the Law Enforcement Division. Region I- Acworth (Northwest) FLOYD COUNTY On July 12th, Game Wardens Sgt. Mike Barr, Cpl. Ben Cunningham, and Ranger Kalem Burns responded to a report of a fight with a large knife involved at the Rocky Mountain Public Fishing Area (PFA) near the beach. Sgt. Barr made contact with a male who he and his sister had been in an argument. Cpl. Cunningham and Ranger Burns stood by with the other parties. No one would admit they were involved in anything but a verbal dispute. The group was removed from the facility. On July 13th, Sgt. Mike Barr found a collapsed person in the parking lot at Rocky Mountain Public Fishing area near the beach. The 17 year old male was having a seizure. Medical personnel arrived to assist and transported the male to a local hospital. Sgt. Barr talked to the girlfriend who admitted the young man had been involved with synthetic marijuana. On July 14th, Sgt. Mike Barr witnessed a fight between two men on Rocky Mountain PFA near the beach. One person was intoxicated and arrested for under the influence on a PFA. Two other persons were cited for possession of alcohol on Rocky Mountain PFA. Six people total were involved in the incident and removed from the facility. On July 15th, Game Wardens Cpl. Shawn Elmore and Ranger Nolan Callaway patrolled Johns Creek on Johns Mountain Wildlife Management Area (WMA).
    [Show full text]
  • Simulated Effects of Impoundment of Lake Seminole on Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Southwestern Georgia and Adjacent Parts of Alabama and Florida
    Simulated Effects of Impoundment of Lake Seminole on Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Southwestern Georgia and Adjacent Parts of Alabama and Florida Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia Geologic Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5077 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Northern view of Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam from the west bank of the Apalachicola River. Photo by Dianna M. Crilley, U.S. Geological Survey. A. Map showing simulated flow net of the Upper Floridan aquifer in the lower Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin under hypothetical preimpoundment Lake Seminole conditions. B. Map showing simulated flow net of the Upper Floridan aquifer in the lower Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin under postimpoundment Lake Seminole conditions. Simulated Effects of Impoundment of Lake Seminole on Ground-Water Flow in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Southwestern Georgia and Adjacent Parts of Alabama and Florida By L. Elliott Jones and Lynn J. Torak Prepared in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia Geologic Survey Atlanta, Georgia Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5077 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 This report is available on the World Wide Web at http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pubs/ For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paleolimnology of Lake Seminole, Ga: Phosphorus, Heavy Metals, Cyanobacteria and Two Invasive Species
    THE PALEOLIMNOLOGY OF LAKE SEMINOLE, GA: PHOSPHORUS, HEAVY METALS, CYANOBACTERIA AND TWO INVASIVE SPECIES Matthew Waters1, Chase H. Patrick1, and Stephen W. Golladay2 AUTHORS: 1Valdosta State University – Biology, 1500 N. Patterson Street, Valdosta, Georgia 31602; 2Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, Georgia REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2013 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 10–11, 2013, at the University of Georgia Abstract. Lake Seminole is a large reservoir formed versely, the Flint River Basin contains only 2 dams and 4 by damming the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers. Cur- sewage treatment plants within its highly agricultural wa- rent management objectives focus on decreasing the tershed. These two rivers meet and form Lake Seminole dense population of the invasive plant, Hydrilla verticil- at the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam. lata, which can cover 55% of the lake. We collected a 2 sediment core from each side of the lake in order to Lake Seminole, GA, is a large (152 km ) and reconstruct the allochthonous inputs and ecological shallow (mean depth 3m) reservoir formed by the joining responses since the dam was constructed. Results of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers. The lake was es- 2 show that the Chattahoochee side of the lake has expe- tablished in 1957 and drains 44,625 km of Georgia and rienced multiple periods of differing heavy metal in- Alabama. Currently, the lake is dominated by a dense puts but has maintained a constant Hydrilla popula- population of the aquatic macrophyte, Hydrilla verticil- tion. The Flint side of the lake has stored large lata. Hydrilla is an invasive species that overtakes native amounts of phosphorus in the sediments as well as aquatic plants, chokes boat lanes, alters fish communities maintained a dense population of the cyanobacterium, and constrains recreational activities of lake visitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Normal Streamflows and Water Levels: Summary of Hydrologic Conditions in Georgia, 2013 the U.S
    Return to Normal Streamflows and Water Levels: Summary of Hydrologic Conditions in Georgia, 2013 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) emphasize the need for accurate, timely data Water Resources Internet Tools South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC) to help Federal, State, and local officials make Georgia office, in cooperation with local, informed decisions regarding the management Historically, hydrologic data collected State, and other Federal agencies, maintains and conservation of Georgia’s water resources by the USGS were compiled into annual data a long-term hydrologic monitoring network for agricultural, recreational, ecological, and reports; however, this method of publication of more than 340 real-time continuous-record water-supply needs and for use in protecting has been discontinued. Current and historical streamflow-gaging stations (streamgages), life and property. data are now available through the National including 10 real-time lake-level monitoring Drought conditions, persistent in the area Water Information System Web interface, or stations, 67 real-time surface-water-quality since 2010, continued into the 2013 WY. In NWISWeb, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/ monitors, and several water-quality sampling February 2013, Georgia was free of extreme (U.S. Geological Survey, 2013a). programs. Additionally, the SAWSC Georgia (D3) drought conditions, as defined by the The USGS has several water resources office operates more than 180 groundwater U.S. Drought Monitor, for the first time Internet tools designed to provide users with monitoring wells, 39 of which are real-time. The since August 2010 due to extended periods current streamflow and groundwater data, wide-ranging coverage of streamflow, reservoir, of heavy rainfall (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Equitable Apportionment of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 36 Issue 4 Article 6 2009 A Tale of Three States: Equitable Apportionment of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Alyssa S. Lathrop [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alyssa S. Lathrop, A Tale of Three States: Equitable Apportionment of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint River Basin, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2009) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol36/iss4/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW A TALE OF THREE STATES: EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN Alyssa S. Lothrop VOLUME 36 SUMMER 2009 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Alyssa S. Lothrop, A Tale of Three States: Equitable Apportionment of the Apalachicola-Chatthoochee-Flint River Basin, 36 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 865 (2009). COMMENT A TALE OF THREE STATES: EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE APALACHICOLA- CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN ALYSSA S. LATHROP* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 865 II. ATRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS:THE ACF RIVER BASIN .................................... 866 A. History and the Beginning of the Conflict ................................................. 867 B. The ACF Compact: A Failed Attempt to Resolve ....................................... 870 C. A Tangled Web of Litigation ...................................................................... 871 D. Current Status of the Water War ............................................................... 873 E. A New Kind of Water War Rages On ......................................................... 877 III. SOME BACKGROUND:WATER LAW &EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT .................
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Level Decline in the Apalachicola River, Florida, from 1954 to 2004, and Effects on Floodplain Habitats
    Water-Level Decline in the Apalachicola River, Florida, from 1954 to 2004, and Effects on Floodplain Habitats By Helen M. Light1, Kirk R. Vincent2, Melanie R. Darst1, and Franklin D. Price3 1 U.S. Geological Survey, 2010 Levy Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32310. 2 U.S. Geological Survey, 3215 Marine , E-127, Boulder, Colorado 80303. 3 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 350 Carroll Street, Eastpoint, Florida 32328. Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Northwest Florida Water Management District Florida Department of Environmental Protection U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5173 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Light, H.M., Vincent, K.R., Darst, M.R., and Price, F.D., 2006, Water-Level Decline in the Apalachicola River, Florida, from 1954 to 2004, and Effects on Floodplain Habitats: U.S.
    [Show full text]